Volkswagen introduced its 2013 Jetta hybrid Monday at the Detroit Auto Show. The carmaker estimates that the hybrid will have a combined average fuel economy of 45 mpg. My first thought was: "Why bother having a hybrid when Volkswagen already has a perfectly good diesel option?"
We've had a difficult time getting close to the combined mpg numbers in many of the hybrids that have come our way (Ford Fusion Hybrid, Kia Optima Hybrid and Honda Insight, to name a few). You're probably thinking that's because Edmunds editors have lead feet.
Perhaps we do, but the lead in our feet doesn't seem to have a negative impact on the TDIs we've had. We've been able to meet or exceed the combined fuel economy ratings in all the TDIs we have tested.
I prefer diesel engines because they deliver more consistent results and I find that the torque is much more useable in everyday driving.
Despite this clear advantage for diesel, I can think of a reason why Volkswagen would still produce a hybrid -- perception. As far as we've come in terms of clean diesels, the public perception of these engines is years behind the times. Ask people what comes to mind when they hear the word "hybrid." Then ask them to do the same for the word "diesel." Chances are you'll get opposing answers: clean and dirty.
I get that Volkswagen wants to cover all the bases. But if these hybrid VWs catch on, I wonder if it will be the end of TDIs.
What about you? Would you rather have a Jetta hybrid or diesel?
Ron Montoya, Consumer Advice Associate
90in55 says:
09:36 AM, 01/10/12
Why bother, indeed? I'd much rather have the TDI.
toastblows says:
09:44 AM, 01/10/12
clean vs dirty.
How much diesel do we burn mining and shipping REE for lith ion battery development? How well are the batterires recycled at the end of their lifespan?........or you can just burn diesel in your car and skip those steps i suppose. (just using my analytical skills....my perception skills are kind of weak).
blueprint1 says:
09:47 AM, 01/10/12
Seein the Hybrid badge on a VW is akin to seeing Black Sabbath performing country music. It's a weird association.
bodyblue says:
09:59 AM, 01/10/12
The simple truth is that while diesels are much cleaner than before they still produce more particulates than gas/hybrids do. They ARE dirtier although not nearly as bad as before. Also hybrids are a lot cheaper to put fuel in since diesels cost more per gallon. And diesel fuel takes more energy to make that gasoline. For trucks and SUVs diesel is a great option but for cars? I would take hybrid any day. Some points to consider for "clean" diesels.
"All this means that diesel pollution can be deadly, causing premature mortality through cancer or heart and respiratory illnesses. The California Air Resources Board has concluded that diesel soot is responsible for 70% of the state's risk of cancer from airborne toxics. In the population as a whole, studies have shown a 26% increase in mortality in people living in soot-polluted cities."
"Making a gallon of diesel fuel requires 25% more oil and emits 17% more heat-trapping greenhouse gases than gasoline reformulated with MTBE. Similarly, diesel requires 17% more oil and emits 18% more heat-trapping gases than gasoline reformulated with ethanol. This means that diesel fuel's advantages from its higher per-gallon energy content and better performance on greenhouse gases are partially offset by the impact of diesel's fuel-production process."
"But UCS modeling suggests that diesel's tough pollution-control challenges and the high up-front cost of engines and emission controls for diesel vehicles gives gasoline technology the edge overall. That means there is no mandate to bring back diesel in a big way—gasoline-powered cars, particularly gasoline-electric hybrids, are likely the best way to go."
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/04-12/diesel-vs-gasoline-article.htm
Its no contest for pollution and efficiency.....and as Infiniti has shown, not all hybrids need to be like a Prius. They can be as fun to drive as any other car.
turbospark says:
10:24 AM, 01/10/12
Electricity in cars I think is here to stay long-term.
What we need now is higher density electrical energy storage, Li-Ion (et.al) batteries are too polluting during manufacture for my taste.
Although, make that badge say "TDI Hybrid" and put it on a Scirocco...
rjparker says:
10:28 AM, 01/10/12
Let's see..... 34 mpg diesel vs 45 mpg combined on the hybrid plus saving 20% per gallon by using gasoline. Reducing noise to an extreme (silent often) such that an extra warning is needed for parking lots...plus no fuel usage at stops and low speed... all pretty good reasons to have a hybrid. Downside? Possible VW reliability issues and an obvious cost bump. However if a VW hybrid has the reliability and mpg of a Toyota hybrid (eg makes epa ratings), then the resale and fuel savings will more than compensate for the upfront costs. Finally hybrid technology paths the way for full electric which is bound to be the standard in the future.
nelsonlu says:
10:30 AM, 01/10/12
toastblows wrote:
"How much diesel do we burn mining and shipping REE for lith ion battery development?"
Apples and oranges. Unless you're ready to ask yourself the question of, "How much diesel (or any other hydrocarbon) do we burn drilling for oil, refining the oil, and shipping the diesel for diesel production?" In other words, it is a legitimate question to ask what are the life cycle energy costs of hybrid production and use, but not if you conveniently ignore the life cycle energy costs of convention or, in this case, diesel vehicle production and use.
purple43 says:
10:38 AM, 01/10/12
Comments by hosts of two local "TV mechanic" shows I watch continue to confirm that maintenance and repair costs for all VWs (and particularly diesels) are much higher than average. Some of the reasons:
. specialized diesel service is required (tending to lock owners into service at VW dealerships)
. multiple expensive filters required by diesel engines must be replaced regularly
. Reliability of VW electrical systems and transmissions, particularly after 4-5 years, is not good. Parts and repair costs are higher than average.
. VW dealers as a whole do not offer the quality of service typically available at other-brand dealerships.
VWs have been sold on cachet ever since the famous "Thnk Small" Beetle campign of the 1960s.
The reality belies the dream.
langjie says:
10:58 AM, 01/10/12
make a diesel hybrid, best of both worlds
bankerdanny says:
11:12 AM, 01/10/12
Why? really? This was a rhetorical question correct?
Do the math. How many hybrid cars are sold in this country? How many diesels? How many hybrid owners, who will typically claim they are buying it to help the 'environment', would/did consider a diesel? A rational person would consider a nice modern clean small diesel sedan as an alternative to a non-plug in hybrid. But rational and hybrid buyer really aren't terms that go together.
VW wants to grow sales big time in the US and it knows that US buyers don't want diesels, even good ones like the TDI. A hybrid in the same US showroom as the superior, but modestly selling TDI makes perfect sense.
ahightower says:
11:33 AM, 01/10/12
I'm more of a miles per dollar guy. I reckon the invisible hand of being a cheapskate will utlimately save the polar bears.
As noted above, the hybrid does get better mpg ostensibly, and it burns a fuel which is cheaper to start with. But the diesel powertrain will surely cost less than the hybrid. It's impossible to say without more info.
autoboy1 says:
11:43 AM, 01/10/12
Langjie
"make a diesel hybrid, best of both worlds"
I've wondered this myself and there are several reasons why I think they don't.
1. Cost. Modern Diesel engines cost more than a gasser. Add cost of battery and motor and you've priced yourself out of contention.
2. power delivery. Diesel engines make a lot of torque which makes them very drivable, but they lack horsepower. a 2.0T VW Diesel makes 140hp while the 2.0T VW turbo gasser makes over 200. Torque makes a drivable car, but it isn't what turns into electricity, it is power that is converted into stored electricity. Still, I've heard that diesel can extract about 45% of the power in a unit of fuel, while gas is more like 30%-35% (gaining in recent years) so I'm not convinced that's the whole story.
3. Weight, most gassers today are aluminum, most diesels iron block.
4. Perception. Diesel is still viewed as a dirty engine. Something hybrid designers want to stay away from.
5. Marketability. Hybrid is a niche. Diesel is a niche. A hybrid diesel would be a niche within a niche.
There are probably more reasons, but still it looks like Mercedes is going to make a diesel hybrid. Lets see how it goes. An actual automotive engineer might have better answers to the technical questions on why we haven't seen a diesel hybrid yet.
texases says:
11:58 AM, 01/10/12
@autoboy1 - +100, you got it exactly right. Cost is a HUGE issue. If either one takes you from 25 to 50 mpgs, there's not enough fuel being used to pay for putting both on the same vehicle.
duck87 says:
12:15 PM, 01/10/12
You guys don’t really need to hear it from me since you've made up your minds, but diesel engines *are* more polluting than comparable petrol engines. The diesel cycle process is inherently dirtier than the otto cycle, and you will always have a tradeoff between high amounts of particulates, or NOx depending on how you fiddle with fuel injection “timing” and AFRs. Emissions which are actually harmful to human health. I’m not sure if you realize this, but diesels are only “clean” in CO2 emissions- which is mostly a function of displacement anyways.
Because US regulations are placing restrictions which are becoming intolerable to diesel engines unless saddled with more and more specialized equipment (urea injection, multi-stage large catalysts, etc.), diesel engines are becoming more expensive, whereas hybrids are going the other direction in terms of price. And while diesel engines are simply another form of ignition combustion (sparkless in this case) and thus have had all the kinks worked out, hybrid technology is still rapidly developing due to the electric side. The use of Atkinson cycle engines and electric motors makes hybrids legitimately more efficient and much cleaner burning than diesels. Europeans are stuck with diesels due to tax laws, not because they prefer slow revving 4.5K rpm redline engines. In the US, it doesn’t even make sense to use diesel engines when fuel costs 30% more.
I think that VW not only realizes the (justified) bad reputation that diesels have in the US; but adding a hybrid helps VW hedge its bets for the future when one technology starts to dominate over the others.
mercedesfan says:
12:37 PM, 01/10/12
Personally I don't think we should have to choose one or the other. Both technologies should be embraced and developed further. Hybrids will always have the penalty of a lot of extra weight so they don't make a lot of sense for sporting cars, but they are very efficient. Diesels with their mountains of torque and smaller drivetrains do make sense for sporting vehicles. Let's embrace both before our electrified future (both BEV and HFC) is ready.
@bodyblue,
Some of your assertions are actually incorrect. For one, diesels (even non-clean diesels) produce considerably less CO2 than a regular gas engine. This is intrinsic to their combustion cycle. The problem with diesels is that because combustion occurs at much higher pressure you get more NOx particulate. These NOx particles are what actually depletes ozone and harms the human lungs. However, modern diesels equipped with urea-injection systems (not the Jetta) scrub this particulate out of the exhaust. The end result is NOx emissions equal to a standard Otto-cycle, but with significantly less CO2. Therefore, modern clean diesels are much cleaner than modern gas engines. However, parallel hybrids are cleaner than either because they run purely on electricity at least part of the time.
@autoboy1,
It's actually far more complicated than any those. True parallel hybrids run an Atkinson cycle with their engines that stops the combustion cycle midway so the engine can be shut off for regeneration and then turned back on again. It wasn't until just very recently that engineers discovered how to do this reliability with a diesel engine and its different combustion cycle.
bodyshopboy says:
12:43 PM, 01/10/12
Some consumers prefer a hybrid and that is a quickly expanding market, so why leave market share on the table, especially if you want to be the # 1 automaker in the world.
@bodyblue:
Good source material - I certainly did not think about particulate emissions when I bought my JSW TDI - I figured if it met the Cali and NY standards, it was OK by me.
"This means that diesel fuel's advantages from its higher per-gallon energy content and better performance on greenhouse gases are partially offset by the impact of diesel's fuel-production process"
Partially is the key, and compared to what is the other key. If your only priority is minimizing emissions and maximizing fuel ecomony then a hybrid is the way to go. If it is overall driving experience then I still feel a diesel has merit.
I don't think that Diesel passenger cars are a menace to our collective well being.
The question becomes compared to what - compared to my old Acura TL, that I was lucky to average 20 mpg, compared to the Jetta that has a long term average of 35.74 mpg then the extra imputs and emissions are more than offset (25% more imputs to get 75% better fuel mileage - looks good to me)
Would I make the same decision today? (Remember - two years the choice was hybrid, diesel or an econobox that would be unlikely to break 30 mpg combined). Posibly not - I'd consider a Ford Focus or a Fusion Hybrid.
Still, my next car may very well be a diesel powered German car - isn't choice great?
jdubbs115 says:
01:05 PM, 01/10/12
I fully expect these hybrids to easily outsell the Jetta TDI. As sales have shown, people looking into economical means of transport have no issue with the reduced power output of hybrid powertrains.
I think the problem rests just as much (if not more) with the availability of diesel fuel.
While anecdotal, I know, I did a quick Google Maps search of where I spend 95% of my time within the greater Philadelphia area (5th/6th largest city in the US, depending on how you measure it). I of course found well over a dozen gas stations within my normal travel areas, which spans a roughly 40-mile corridor of travel.
I found only 3 stations on my normal routes that sell diesel. They're very far apart from one another.
I've also only been able to locate about 30 of them in all of Philadelphia County. Since Google's not perfect (and neither am I), let's just say 40.
For a city with over 1.5 million people that serves an area of over 4 million (per Wikipedia), I'd say diesel is rather hard to come by. With this is mind, why would the average consumer buy a diesel car if odds are that they'll have to go far out of their way just to fill up, and pay more when they get there?
bodyblue says:
01:16 PM, 01/10/12
"But rational and hybrid buyer really aren't terms that go together."
What a bigoted statement. I could say the same thing about Euro-diesel buyers....they only think it is cool because people in Europe buy more diesels. Only fools dont realize that European social engineering by tax policy creates the demand for diesels, not performance. Car magazines like this one and others constantly beat the diesels drum and then dont give all the facts so their argument seems better.
"Some of your assertions are actually incorrect. For one, diesels (even non-clean diesels) produce considerably less CO2 than a regular gas engine. This is intrinsic to their combustion cycle. The problem with diesels is that because combustion occurs at much higher pressure you get more NOx particulate. "
Not at all (and they are not my assertions..did you read the article?) Even scrubbed diesels ex produces more particulates than gas engines which produce virtually none. Read up on the science of the question. About a year ago that is what I did when figuring out which side made more sense. The science proves what the article I linked says. Diesels are dirtier, period. And when made to be acceptably clean they are barely more efficient than the newest gas engines. It is a really a dead end. Heavy and light duty trucks need diesels, cars dont.
If anybody wants to really get informed about the TRUTH of this issue and not emotion then I recommend this article as well from the Union of Concerned Scientist.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/technologies_and_fuels/gasoline_and_diesel/the-diesel-dilemma-diesels.html
"As shown in Table ES-1, more efficient gasoline and diesel vehicles could substantially improve fuel economy and save consumers money at the pump. Our modeling, though, suggests that the high up-front cost of diesel engines and emission controls allows improved gasoline vehicles to deliver energy security and global warming benefits at a lower cost."
I really think a lot of this diesel worship is misplaced Euro worship...I.E. if the Euros do it, it must be better than other ways of doing things.
texases says:
01:34 PM, 01/10/12
BB's right - if you want your eyes opened on diesel vs. gas, go the EPA web site and compare the Prius to the diesel Jetta. For example, fuel cost/15k miles = $990/$1668 Prius/Jetta; CO2 emissions = 178/299 grams/mile Prius/Jetta.
No comparision, really.
mercedesfan says:
02:39 PM, 01/10/12
@bodyblue,
The articles you linked are from nearly a decade ago, before urea-injection was in widespread use on diesel passenger cars. I agree with your point that diesels of ten years ago were dirty. However, modern "clean" diesels really are not. The "soot" particulate that one of the articles referenced is what is scrubbed out of modern diesel combustion. If you look at the EPA's smog scores for modern diesels and compare them with their gasoline brethren (i.e. E350 vs E350 Bluetec, 335i vs 335d, etc) you'll find they are identical or even sometimes lower (BMW). This never used to be the case. Diesels were always much dirtier as your article said, but times change.
Having said that, modern DI gasoline engines are the cleanest of all. By using the diesel cycle's more efficient combustion process they are able to obtain the benefits of a Diesel and an Otto cycle. The link below compares the E350 with the E350 Bluetec. Notice how much less CO2 the diesel emits compared to the old port-injected M272. Now compare that with the new DI M276.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32088&id=32087&id=30667&#tab2
Lastly, none are as clean as hybrids and they never will be. Having a non-polluting electric motor take over part of the responsibility will always be cleanest. Having said that, hybrids have definite performance drawbacks, not the least of which being their non-linear power delivery and added weight. Even the M35h, a respectable performance hybrid, is highly compromised compared to the M37. That is why people like diesels for passenger cars. They are fuel efficient, no longer offensively dirty, and produce mountains of torque.
randomtwinkie says:
02:44 PM, 01/10/12
Why not a TDI hybrid? best of both worlds..
vwwilliam says:
03:41 PM, 01/10/12
I suspect the Hybrid will drive showroom traffic but customers will likely drive away in a TDI. Especially if they're manual transmission loyalists.
83_silberpfiel says:
04:52 PM, 01/10/12
Please ---- give us more diesels, especially turbo diesels!!!! In the Jetta wagon, Golf, and Passat wagon varieties!!!
Heck --- why not use a small diesel engine as the "base combustion" engine for the Hybrid???
louiswei says:
05:23 PM, 01/10/12
"But rational and hybrid buyer really aren't terms that go together."
Really? Kind of an ignorant statement don't you think?
I can't speak for everyone else but I can tell you that our decision for purchasing the Prius was completely rational. If it was not then the wife will be driving a Mini Cooper S right now...
louiswei says:
05:32 PM, 01/10/12
mercedesfan said:
"Having said that, modern DI gasoline engines are the cleanest of all."
www.fueleconomy.gov says:
(Grams per mile)
E350 Bluetec - 407
M35h - 306
Jetta TDI - 299
Prius - 187
(Cost to drive 25 miles)
E350 Bluetec - $3.78
M35h - $3.08
Jetta TDI - $2.78
Prius - $1.65
So who's wrong?
allthingshonda says:
05:42 PM, 01/10/12
VW should incorporate both technologies and make a TDI Hybrid powertrain. Can't be that hard since locomotives have been diesel hybrids for over 60 years.
bodyblue says:
05:52 PM, 01/10/12
Its a no brainer, really....when one uses their brain, not the seat of ones pants.
bodyshopboy says:
06:35 PM, 01/10/12
@ Bodyblue
"Its a no brainer, really....when one uses their brain, not the seat of ones pants."
Really? If must get in the last word at least make it an intelligent one...
firstwagon says:
07:24 PM, 01/10/12
I think there is is a market for both as they are designed for different drivers. Diesels are great hwy cars and hybrids excel in stop and go traffic. If people can look past their bias about one or the other (most of which seems to be based on BS anyhow) you simply need to look at the type of driving you do.
Pick the the best for your commute.
bassrockerx says:
08:56 PM, 01/10/12
why not diesel-hybrid?
chunky_azian says:
08:56 PM, 01/10/12
Why not a diesel hybrid. Diesels thrive on the highway, hybrid rules the city streets. Why not combine the best of both?
firstwagon says:
09:09 PM, 01/10/12
Reason I've heard is diesels just don't like the start / stop that is the core of a hybrid. They have come a long way since the diesels of old (which could be so hard to start that I remember people just left them running) but there are still problems to be solved.
A diesel might work better in a system like a Volt where it is either off all the time or on most of the time.
blueguydotcom says:
09:31 PM, 01/10/12
@first - "you simply need to look at the type of driving you do."
Or the type of performance you want. Honestly the arguing I'm seeing over which crazy efficient type is better at a forum devoted pretty much to performance cars...well that's funny. TDI v. Prius v....damn how about something fun and mildly efficient?!
to626n says:
01:57 AM, 01/11/12
Why bother? The price difference between diesel and petrol alone should be enough. In the Los Angeles area petrol is $ 0.10 to $ 0.25 cheaper per gallon than diesel.
blueprint1 says:
05:23 AM, 01/11/12
My Canadian 2 cents:
Up here, the hybrid won't sell because:
- diesel is cheaper than regular gas (worse case, at par during winter peaks);
- TDI take rate 30-50% depending on model;
- hybrid likely more expensive than TDI;
- VW drivers love sticks (unless they offer the hybrid with one);
- real-world mpg with diesels always higher than gvt figures;
- more electronics in a VW = disaster in the making.
Volvo sells a diesel hybrid in Europe.
texases says:
06:45 AM, 01/11/12
Diesel's a $0.50/gallon extra cost in Dallas area.
duck87 says:
08:30 AM, 01/11/12
@mercedesfan: I'd wager it's the other way around. At least with a petrol engine you still get something resembling a high revving, fun to drive engine. European diesels are the most boring cars on the planet, they rev slow and then they only rev to 4.5k RPM. And diesel engines are quite HEAVY. Even with aluminum alloy blocks at some point, they still weigh 100 or so lbs, more than the equivalent petrol engine, more if you consider the transmission hooked up.
You also fail to discount the ENORMOUS amount of emissions control equipment that diesels are required to use. At some point (like, in the next five years), they won't be able to even meet US emissions requirements. When you have to resort to using urea (i.e. a large component in URINE) to scrub the exhaust on larger diesels, you know the writing is on the wall.
Finally, why is there no diesel hybrid? Diesel engines are not stop/start fans, and secondly, the price premium will be ridiculous (you already need to pay a premium for a diesel, and you need to pay a premium for the hybrid component too).
bodyblue says:
09:04 AM, 01/11/12
"Really? If must get in the last word at least make it an intelligent one..."
I thought it was really. The point being if one looks at all of the facts and uses ones brain to rationally look at the two systems, the hybrid is by far the best for enviromental and economic issues. But for fun to drive, the TDI, for now, is better. That is what I meant by "seat of your pants".
lucien4 says:
09:25 AM, 01/11/12
Diesel hybrids already exist in Europe: Peugeot 3008. Cost? 42K Euro's. Besides that diesel fuel is more expensive in US so I don't see that making sense for the US at this point.
EPA is 32% higher for the Jetta hybrid. Even if you don't achieve EPA I'm not seeing how you could get lower mpg than the Jetta TDI if you drive it similar. And in city hybrid is much better. CO2 is also much lower even at same mpg.
I only would not surprised if VW would price the hybrid model higher... They typically do to show how much TDI makes more sense (for some reason Toyota can price it lower with better mpg).
Compare the larger heavier Fusion in your fleet which only takes regular fuel (-15% cost in fuel)...
bodyshopboy says:
10:10 AM, 01/11/12
@ Bodyblue -
"I thought it was really. The point being if one looks at all of the facts and uses ones brain to rationally look at the two systems, the hybrid is by far the best for enviromental and economic issues. But for fun to drive, the TDI, for now, is better. That is what I meant by "seat of your pants".
Here here - well clarified, and definately a smart summation.
bodyblue says:
10:33 AM, 01/11/12
LOL
toastblows says:
12:08 PM, 01/16/12
nelsonlu says:
"Apples and oranges. Unless you're ready to ask yourself the question of, "How much diesel (or any other hydrocarbon) do we burn drilling for oil, refining the oil, and shipping the diesel for diesel production?" In other words, it is a legitimate question to ask what are the life cycle energy costs of hybrid production and use, but not if you conveniently ignore the life cycle energy costs of convention or, in this case, diesel vehicle production and use."
Not sure I follow you. If you are comparing a chevy cruze eco vs vw jetta tdi....they both contain the same type of internal combustion engine regarding parts (or "close enough")....as in there isnt a battery system in either. If you are comparing those 2....the oil extraction and shipping is the same cost....the cost of materials and assembly is the same....vs a hybrid that has an additional "system" that has to be built from materials ON TOP OF a normal internal combustion engine which it is.
You have a better argument that a nissan leaf vs a ICE auto production is better for the planet.....not when you strap another system ontop of an already ICE engine.
ebb2143 says:
08:02 PM, 01/31/12
BodyBlue: Check your facts on particulate matter from the newer diesels with particulate filters. There is NO measurable particulate matter (PM) from new diesels, like the CR TDI.
http://priuschat.com/forums/prius-hybrid-ev-alt-fuel-news/49909-2009-vw-jetta-tdi-emissions-results-in.html
When the emission data is compared to gas engines, I think you will find that the newest diesels are some of the cleanest cars on the road.
Your link is way out of date (2005).
I own a diesel, but don't hate on hybrids. Hybrids are great for some commutes, but not mine.